Early goal directed therapy versus a protocolized resuscitation care in early management of septic shock

Objective Multicenter studies showed that early goal directed therapy (EGDT) did not improve outcome in patients with septic shock compared with undefined usual care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a protocolized resuscitation care compared to traditional EGDT in early management of septic shock on short-term mortality.Design A randomized controlled trail.Setting Emergency Department and Critical Care Units of Alexandria main university hospital.Patients 100 adult patients of both genders with septic shock.Methods All patients received early fluid resuscitation, empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy and mechanical ventilation if indicated. Then, they were randomly assigned into two groups: Early goal directed therapy (EGDT) group (n = 50) and Protocolized resuscitation care (PRC) group (n = 50).Results EGDT group showed 20% reduction in need for vasopressor than PRC group with significant difference (p = 0.001). PRC group showed lower mortality rate than EGDT group but with no significant difference (p = 0.405). There were no differences in ICU stay, mechanical ventilation days and duration of vasopressor (p= 0.091, 0.243, 0.372 respectively).Conclusion A Protocolized resuscitation care may be beneficial as compared to EGDT in early management of septic shock with a non-significant trend to decrease mortality.